Filenews 14 January 2026
By Hal Brands*
President Donald Trump faces a decision that will determine the course of his presidency as he considers and threatens new military action against Iran. His options reportedly range from supporting opposition forces challenging the regime to continued military strikes aimed at shaking the leadership. The potential benefits are enormous, given Iran's devastating regional and global influence, but so are the complications of such a decision.
If the moral behind the logic of an intervention can be seen as strong, given the courage that Iranian protesters have shown in their resistance to a murderous regime, the strategic part is also tempting. For decades, Iran has been perhaps the most malicious, destabilizing influence in an ever-troubled region. It has cultivated "proxies" who attack the US and its allies. It fuels religious conflicts from the Levant to the Persian Gulf. Tehran has launched massive ballistic missile attacks against Israel, while also developing a nuclear program that only a harsh military punishment could stop.
The regime has also fuelled the war in Ukraine by arming Russia. It has been linked to an axis of authoritarian regimes that challenges US influence on a global scale.
However, this regime has been drastically weakened by the repeated popular uprisings and the military humiliation inflicted on it by Israel and the US last June. And underneath a radically anti-American regime lies a much less hostile population. President Trump certainly realizes the transformative impact that regime change can have in the Middle East, and beyond.
Few things could better advance Trump's vision of a "new Middle East" – in which trade replaces conflict – than the end of a regime that deliberately promotes bloody regional unrest. The collapse of the Iranian government would mark the post-October 7 era, in which Tehran and its proxies waged a war on several fronts, prompting Israel and the U.S. to respond by redrawing the Middle East's strategic map.
Supporting the Iranian protesters would show that the pursuit of nuclear weapons endangers such regimes rather than strengthens them. It could eliminate the weakest member of their axis, further confirming – after the US raid on Venezuela – that China and Russia cannot protect their friends from the wrath of a superpower.
The opportunities are tempting, but military intervention undoubtedly carries many risks.
A meaningful attack on Iran would not, in all likelihood, be "clean" and "tidy." Civilian options, such as cyberattacks against government targets or media support for protesters, will harass but not fatally weaken a savage regime. Limited attacks on government targets probably won't bring down leadership.
To change the balance in the confrontation between the people and the state, a protracted campaign of air strikes against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and other repressive organs will probably be needed. Even then, given the size and commitment of the repressive forces to the regime, there is no guarantee of success – and the risk of failure is real, which would make Trump appear weak.
For this reason, the policy of intervention is complicated. Trump managed to ignore the pro-neo-isolationist wing of his base when he carried out previous attacks on Venezuela and Iran because these operations were brief and highly successful. A more vague, overt intervention risks bringing him up to greater criticism, not only from his Democratic opponents, but also from MAGA supporters who advocate restraint.
There is also a risk that the operation will lead to something bad, if not even worse. The collapse of the Iranian regime probably does not imply the birth of a pro-Western democracy. It could simply provoke a prolonged violence at home, leading to regional instability. Even an attack on the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, could only hasten the Revolutionary Guards Corps' takeover of power.
Finally, let's consider the question of timing: How much longer can Iranian protesters remain in the streets, under fire from regime forces. At the same time, given the large deployment of U.S. forces, such as aircraft carriers, in other areas, the Pentagon would probably need more time to prepare for an attack and protect itself from Iran's response.
Trump could try to punish the Iranians for their indifference to his warnings, while sidestepping some of these dilemmas. It could establish a long-term program of secret support for the Iranian opposition, modelled on the programs implemented in Eastern Europe under Soviet occupation in the 1980s. It could launch a short, punitive attack aimed at weakening Iran's military capabilities rather than toppling the regime. Or it could take advantage of this moment to pursue a deal that will force Iran to sign off on the abolition of its nuclear program – or what's left of it.
These options may weaken or limit the Iranian threat, but they may also allow the regime to emerge from the current predicament by using force. A president who prefers clear, decisive solutions may struggle to find such an answer in this case.
A decade ago, Trump assumed the U.S. presidency, condemning America's military interventions in the Middle East. Now, the fate of his presidency – and much more – may depend on how he handles the opportunities and risks presented by such an intervention.
*Brands is also a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, author of "The Eurasian Century: Hot Wars, Cold Wars, and the Making of the Modern World," and a senior advisor to Macro Advisory Partners.
